The 40D was my first really good DLSR in terms of IQ and features. My prior 10D/20D didn't really cut it. However, the 40D was expensive for its day and lots of crybabies on this forum bitched and balled about the "old tech" Canon stuck them with in Fall 2007 when it debuted. I recall the photogeeks were especially bitter about the low rez LCD and thought Nikon would take over the world with MicroSoft.

If I were to pick a "value added" camera for today, I'd have to agree with Ralph: the 5D2 is the image ghetto king. The technogeeks would be humiliated to be seen with such old tech but the images are so friggen good they take no dad burn prisoners.

Hard to argue with the 40D - an all round well balanced package. For those needing better AF a 1D2N has to be a steal now, and a 5D or a 1DSII offers full frame quality and big bright viewfinders at a very attractive price.

30D was my first "real" camera and it just blew me away at how good it felt in my large hands compared to the Rebel. I'll always have a love for that camera and the friend I sold it to is still taking great pictures with it.

Great fan of the 40d, but at current prices, the 7d and 5D2 are pretty good deals. I'm seeing the 7d around $900 and the 5D2 around $1200 locally on CL. Though I do see the 40d for around $350 or so.

The additions on the 7D compared to the 40D takes it to another level. Everything is better. 100% viewfinder, LCD resolution, 18mp vs 10mp, video mode, much better metering, much higher FPS, much better AF and better build quality.

D. Diggler wrote:
Rebels suck in the hands. And I don't have large hands. Even with a grip they're not as nice as the 30D.

I only owned one Rebel--XTi--and the grip was so small and narrow it bit into my knuckles and caused my hand to cramp during long sessions. A little larger and more rounded grip makes a huge difference in comfort.

Price/performance ratio the 40D was/is superb. The main improvement of the successor 50D was just MFA which was for some unknown reason again removed in the 60D. I agree, 40D should be ranked high in this poll.

Personally, I always preferred full frame format. After I got my 5D II, the cropped xxD and Rebel sensor was nearly forgotten for me. I think the 5D II was the best FF camera at the time when it was released just by sensor technology even it came with some issues like banding at high ISO and outdated AF system.

From a neutral point of view, my DSLR choice would go to the 40D. As personal favorite it was and still is the 5D II.

Easy the 20D.
When was released it was brilliant.
First 9pt AF camera and basically the 30d,40d and 50D all come from that formula.
IQ was excellent and reliable as anything.
Still ave mine 8 years later as I can't bring myself to sell it.
Ang for buck it was one of Canons best and converted many Nikonians with is great IQ and AI servo that worked as opposed to the 10D.
First prosumer body to give IQ and AF in the same shell.
From that alone its a standout all the others where simply minor improvements on a great design.http://www.vortexaviationphotography.com/Civil-Aviation-Photography/Tokyo-Narita-Airport/i-w67hZFG/5/L/oykba070505dehowie5-L.jpg

With a few notable exceptions, all Canon DSLRs have offered good value, IMO.

The 1Ds series was never a good value and the 1DX continues the tradition.
The 5DIII was a poor value at introduction but this has been (mostly) corrected now.
Other Canon DSLRs have offered good value overall.

On a side note, the 6D is not a poor value, IMO, despite its inadequate AF system.
And yet, sales appear to be soft from the start.
Same for the Nikon D600 sales, btw, so the specs don't seem to be the issue.
Maybe the enthusiasm for entry level DSLRs is not all that great .

jorkata wrote:
With a few notable exceptions, all Canon DSLRs have offered good value, IMO.

The 1Ds series was never a good value and the 1DX continues the tradition.
The 5DIII was a poor value at introduction but this has been (mostly) corrected now.
Other Canon DSLRs have offered good value overall.

On a side note, the 6D is not a poor value, IMO, despite its inadequate AF system.
And yet, sales appear to be soft from the start.
Same for the Nikon D600 sales, btw, so the specs don't seem to be the issue.
Maybe the enthusiasm for entry level DSLRs is not all that great . ...Show more →

Perhaps the world economy is so brittle people are just being smarter about high end spending, keeping some cash at hand for...

Personally, you'll never see me buy a body until it's supported by the software I use for post

StillFingerz wrote:
Perhaps the world economy is so brittle people are just being smarter about high end spending, keeping some cash at hand for...

Personally, you'll never see me buy a body until it's supported by the software I use for post

Also the IQ from the cameras prior to these is still remarkably good, why upgrade unless there was some issue they specifically addressed you were hanging out for? It's the same with many areas nowadays like LCD/plasma screens. If you bought something 3 years ago say, you will be hard pressed to see improvements with current models. Mostly internet features and better power usage. Not surprising TV manufacturers are doing it tough.